An Analysis of the Profitability and Performance. of the. Michigan Auto Insurance Market

Transcription

1 An Analysis of the Profitability and Performance of the Michigan Auto Insurance Market by Jay Angoff Roger Brown & Associates 216 E. McCarty Street Jefferson City, MO May 30, 2007

2 Executive Summary...ii I. Introduction...1 II. The performance of the insurance industry nationally.2 A. The performance of the property/casualty industry.2 B. The performance of the auto insurance industry nationally. 4 III. The Uniqueness of the Michigan Auto Insurance Market..5 A. The no-fault trade-off...5 B. The rating factor trade-off...7 IV. The performance of three leading Michigan auto insurers: State Farm, Auto Club and Allstate...9 A. Background..9 B. Incurred loss analysis. 10 C. Paid loss analysis...17 D. Additional relevant data from AAA s Annual Statement..23 V. The performance of the Michigan auto insurance industry based on data compiled by the NAIC...25 A. The NAIC s Profitability by Line by State data B. The NAIC data base...26 C. The AIR analysis of NAIC data.27 VI. The effect of Kreiner or of reversing Kreiner on Michigan auto insurance profits and premiums...29 VII. Possible ways to bring down auto insurance rates in Michigan..33 A. Authorize the commissioner to find rates excessive..33 B. Repeal MCL a.33 C. Limit the extent to which territory can affect auto insurance premiums...34 D. Authorize the commissioner to order refunds of the excessive portion of a rate and of surcharges based on unlawful rating factors.35 E. Allow policyholders to hold insurers accountable for illegal overcharges 35 F. Allow the public to have access to the MCCA s records, and authorize the commissioner to disapprove excessive MCCA assessments...36 i

3 Executive Summary This report analyzes the Michigan auto insurance market based both on the companyspecific data the three leading auto insurance carriers have filed with the Michigan Office of Financial and Insurance Services and on the aggregate data the National Association of Insurance Commissioners has compiled from the filings of all Michigan auto insurers. It finds the following: * The Michigan auto insurance market is unique in several respects. For example, Michigan is the only state in which people injured in auto accidents can obtain unlimited nofault benefits--reimbursement for the costs of treating their injuries, regardless of the extent of the treatment necessary, from their own insurance company. On the other hand, Michigan is also one of only a few states which not only allow insurers to raise rates at will, but also both prohibit the commissioner from ordering refunds and prohibit drivers from suing when auto insurers overcharge their policyholders. * For the three leading Michigan auto insurers--state Farm, Allstate, and AAA--both liability and physical damage coverage have been highly profitable over the last five years. These two coverages account for about two-thirds of the auto insurance premium. * The true profitability of no-fault coverage, which accounts for approximately onethird of the premium, is difficult to determine. That is because of the manner in which claims exceeding $400,000 are paid, and because of the manner in which insurers account for those payments. The Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association is funded by an annual percar surcharge and pays for no-fault claims exceeding $400,000. Whether the assessments auto insurers and ultimately policyholders pay to the MCCA are reasonable, and whether the assumptions the MCCA makes as to its ultimate liability are reasonable, are not known ii

4 today, because the MCCA takes the position that it is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. * AAA, which is the only one of the three leading carriers whose business consists predominantly of Michigan business, more than doubled its profits in five years, from $50.9 million in 2002 to $104.2 million in AAA s surplus--the amount it holds over and above the amount it has set aside to pay claims--has also increased substantially in the last five years, from $915 million in 2002 to $1.534 billion in * The Michigan Supreme Court s decision in Kreiner v. Fischer, which makes it more difficult for auto accident victims to sue the driver of the car that caused the accident, has not had and is unlikely to have a material effect on Michigan auto insurance premiums. That is because, among other things, the only part of the auto insurance premium dollar Kreiner could affect is the liability portion, which accounts for only 15% of the total auto insurance premium. In addition, any effect Kreiner could have on an individual s auto insurance premium is dwarfed by the effect the driver s individual characteristics--such as where he lives, his credit history, and whether he s had a gap in coverage--have on his premium. * The Michigan Insurance Code does not authorize auto insurers to surcharge drivers based on credit history, lack of prior coverage, education or occupation. Nevertheless, many auto insurers in Michigan do surcharge people based on these factors, since the Michigan statute does not provide for any meaningful penalty against insurers who do impose these surcharges. * The rating characteristic which has the greatest effect on a driver s premium in Michigan is territory--where the driver lives. According to the 2006 Buyers Guide to Auto iii

5 Insurance published by OFIS, premiums typically differ by between 250% and 350% based on territory alone. Insurers also give substantial weight to credit history, notwithstanding its questionable legal status, in calculating individual premiums in Michigan. * Various changes to Michigan law could be enacted which would bring Michigan auto insurance rates down. They include: - Authorizing the commissioner to find rates excessive and to disapprove excessive rates. - Strengthening the law prohibiting insurers from surcharging people based on credit history, lack of prior coverage, and other factors that have driven up rates for lowincome people. - Authorizing the commissioner to order refunds when insurers unlawfully overcharge policyholders. - Establishing a private right of action to enable policyholders to recover illegal overcharges. - Enabling the public to have access to the MCCA s records, and authorizing the commissioner to disapprove excessive MCCA assessments. The profitability of no-fault coverage depends to a large extent on what the ultimate liabilities of the MCCA are, and under current law the ultimate liabilities of the MCCA are whatever the MCCA says they are. Allowing the legislature and the public to have access to the MCCA s data and projections will enable the public to have a truer picture of the profitability of no-fault insurance than is available today. iv

6 I. Introduction This report analyzes the Michigan auto insurance market based both on the companyspecific data the three leading auto insurance carriers have filed with the Michigan Office of Financial and Insurance Services ( OFIS ) and on the aggregate data the National Association of Insurance Commissioners ( NAIC ) has compiled from the filings of all Michigan auto insurers. First, so as to place the performance of the Michigan auto insurance market in context, this Report briefly reviews the nationwide performance of both the property/casualty industry in general and the auto insurance industry in particular. Second, it describes the Michigan auto insurance market and explains some of the characteristics that make the Michigan market different from other state auto insurance markets. Third, it reviews the performance and profitability of the three leading Michigan auto insurance carriers State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ( State Farm ), Automobile Club Insurance Association ( AAA ), and Allstate Insurance Company ( Allstate )--based on the Annual Statements they have filed with the Department of Insurance and the NAIC. Fourth, it reviews the performance and profitability of the Michigan auto insurance market as a whole, based on the aggregate data the NAIC has compiled from the Annual Statements of all Michigan auto insurers. Fifth, based on the data insurers have filed with the Michigan Department, the Report explains the effect the case of Kreiner v. Fischer, 471 Mich. 109 (2004), which made it more 1

7 difficult for auto accident victims to sue, has had and is likely to have on Michigan auto insurers. It also explains the effect reversing that decision would be likely to have. Finally, the Report proposes several alternative methods for bringing auto insurance rates in Michigan down. II. The performance of the insurance industry nationally A. The performance of the property/casualty industry Property/casualty industry profitability reached new all-time highs in 2004, 2005 even after accounting for all losses caused by Hurricane Katrina and The industry s net income for each of the last 15 years is shown in the following chart: $70,000 $60,000 P/C Insurer Profit After Taxes ($ Millions) $63,695 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $14,178 $10,000 $0 $5,840 $19,316 $10,870 $24,404 $20,598 $36,819 $30,773 $21,865 $20,559 $43,013 $38,501 $30,029 $3,046 -$10, $6, Sources: A.M. Best, ISO, Insurance Information Inst. As the chart indicates, the industry s $63.7 billion profit in 2006 was almost 50% greater then the record high it had set a year earlier. 2

8 Property/casualty industry surplus the amount the industry holds in addition to the amount it has set aside as reserves to pay claims in the future has also set new records in each of the last three years, as the following chart indicates. $550 $500 $450 $400 $350 $300 $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 P/C Insurer Surplus: ($ Billions) $ Source: A.M. Best, ISO, Insurance Information Institute At year-end 2002 the industry s surplus stood at $285 billion. That surplus increased to $391 billion in 2004, $427 billion in 2005, and $487 billion as of year end The industry s surplus thus has increased by $197 billion, or 69%, in less than four years. Perhaps most impressive, however, is that the industry had an underwriting profit of $31.2 billion--profit from its insurance business alone, before adding in investment income-- in Because they earn so much in investment income, insurers must lose money on underwriting to maintain their rates at adequate but not excessive levels: subtracting the money they lose on underwriting from the money they earn on their investments leaves them with an adequate but not excessive profit. In 2006, however, the industry earned a profit of 3

9 7.6 cents on each premium dollar it collected in addition to the profit it earned by investing its assets. That is the highest annual underwriting profit the industry has ever had. B. The performance of the auto insurance industry nationally While industry-wide 2006 auto insurance results are not yet available, results for the carriers that have reported, according to the Insurance Journal, are eye-popping. For example, Allstate reported a record $5 billion profit in 2006 and State Farm s profits rose 65 percent in Moreover, in the fourth quarter of 2006 St. Paul Travelers' profits rose 600%, and AIG s rose 800%. Insurers Reject Critics Who Say Big Profits Are at Claimants Expense, Insurance Journal, March 28, In addition, when 2004 auto insurance results were reported a respected auto insurance industry newsletter observed that Personal auto insurance reached its second highest after-tax profit margin in a generation in Risk Information, Inc., Auto Insurance Report, Feb. 13, 2006, at 1. Regarding 2005 auto insurance profitability, the newsletter stated that No one is allowed to complain about the auto insurance market in Everyone, and we mean everyone, made money, just as they did in 2004, and just as they will in Risk Information, Inc., Auto Insurance Report, Dec. 19, 2005, at 1. Based on the auto insurance industry s excellent 2004 and 2005 results, the record profitability of property/casualty insurance in general in 2006, and the fact that auto insurance accounts for about 40% of all property/casualty insurance, one can reasonably expect that the profitability of auto insurance will also have set a new record in

10 III. The Uniqueness of the Michigan Auto Insurance Market The Michigan auto insurance market is unique in two major respects, both of which involve trade-offs. First, people injured in auto accidents can obtain reimbursement for the costs of treating their injuries, regardless of the extent of the treatment necessary, from their own insurance company. In exchange for enabling auto accident victims to receive such benefits, the legislature has strictly limited the circumstances under which they can sue the driver of the car that caused the accident. Second, unlike insurers in virtually all other states, who can use virtually any criteria they wish to in calculating auto insurance premiums, auto insurers in Michigan can use only the criteria specified in the Michigan Insurance Code. Counterbalancing this restriction it places on insurers, however, Michigan allows insurers to raise rates at will, and both prohibits the commissioner from ordering refunds and prohibits private parties from suing when auto insurers overcharge their policyholders. This section discusses both these sets of trade-offs. A. The no-fault trade-off Michigan is the only state in the union which provides unlimited no-fault medical benefits. Thus, in Michigan all auto accident victims, including those seriously injured, can be reimbursed for all their resulting medical expenses from their own insurance company. All other states either do not enable auto accident victims to obtain any compensation from their own insurers, or severely limit such compensation. In exchange for allowing auto accident victims to be reimbursed for their medical costs by their own insurance company, Michigan strictly limits the circumstances under which they can sue the driver who caused the accident and thus can recover from his 5

11 insurance company. Specifically, Michigan allows such suits only if the injured person has suffered death, serious impairment of body function, or permanent serious disfigurement. MCL (1). In contrast, states without no-fault system allow auto accident victims to sue regardless of the severity of the injury; most states with no-fault systems allow suits if damages exceed a certain amount; and those few other states that, like Michigan, describe the type of injury an individual must have to sue rather than specifying the amount of damages he must have allow suits for much less serious injuries than Michigan does. Michigan is also the only state in the union that has established a fund which pays all no-fault claims exceeding a certain level. Between 1978 and 2002, that level was $250,000; it is now $400,000, and it will increase gradually to $500,000 in The fund, called the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Fund, or MCCA, is run by the industry and funded by policyholders: each year the MCCA s actuaries estimate the amount they project will be necessary to pay the claims covered by the MCCA, and calculate a per-car surcharge that each auto insurer pays to the MCCA and bills its policyholders for. The estimates on which these surcharges are based are necessarily highly uncertain because the costs the MCCA will ultimately need to pay depend to a large extent on future interest rates, future stock market performance, and the future cost of medical care none of which any of us can possibly know today. MCCA assessment have therefore fluctuated wildly. In 1998, for example, the MCCA refunded $1.2 billion, or $180 per car, to Michigan drivers, because inflation was lower than the MCCA s actuaries expected and they projected that future claim costs would drop. In each of the three most recent fiscal years, on the other hand, the MCCA per-car surcharge was between $127 and $142. 6

12 B. The rating factor trade-off Unlike virtually all other states, Michigan specifies the rating factors insurers must use. Rating factors are the various characteristics, such as driving record, mileage driven and years of driving experience, based on which an individual s auto insurance premium can vary. For example, auto insurers surcharge drivers with poor driving records, and give discounts to drivers with clean driving records. For both liability and no-fault coverage in Michigan, the only rating factors auto insurers can use--i.e., the only criteria based on which auto insurers can surcharge or discount an individual driver--are the following: 1. The driver s age, length of driving experience, or number of years licensed; 2. Driver primacy; 3. Mileage driven; 4. Type of use; 5. Vehicle characteristics; 6. Commuting mileage; 7. Number of cars insured or licensed operators; 8. Amount of insurance; 9. Successful completion of an accident prevention education course; 10. Driving record; 11. Territory. MCL (2)(a), (2)(d), (3), (4). In contrast, most states permit insurers to use virtually any rating factor they wish, including such characteristics as credit history, length of prior coverage, prior limits, education, and occupation. Insurers have argued, notwithstanding section 2111, that a new section of the Code enacted in 1996, section 2110a, permits them to use any rating factor not authorized by section 2111 that is actuarially justified. In fact, however, 2110a allows insurers to use rating characteristics not authorized by section 2111 only if they are part of a premium discount plan, and only if (1) the rating characteristic is uniformly applied to all the insurer s policyholders, (2) the insurer's premium discount plan is consistent with the purposes of the 7

13 EIA, and (3) the plan reflects reasonably anticipated reductions in losses or expenses. 1 No insurer has ever made a showing that any rating factor not authorized by section 2111 meets the 3-part test of section 2110a. 2 While on the one hand Michigan places a burden on auto insurers by strictly limiting the rating factors they may use, on the other hand Michigan confers a benefit on auto insurers by permitting them to raise their rates at will: rate increases are subject to neither the commissioner s prior approval nor any waiting period, but rather take effect automatically upon filing. MCL Moreover, the commissioner has no practical authority to disapprove rate increases even after they have taken effect. That is because under Michigan law, unlike the law of most states, to be excessive not only must an auto insurance rate be unreasonably high for the insurance coverage provided, but in addition the auto insurance market must be one in which a reasonable degree of competition does not exist. MCL (1)(a). Because many different auto insurers do business and have always done business in Michigan, the reasonable degree of competition does not exist standard has never been met and could not be met. Notably, the commissioner has recently found that, although in certain territories the auto insurance market is not reasonably competitive, on a statewide basis it is. OFIS, The Competitiveness and Premium Excessiveness of the Home and Auto Insurance Industries in the State of Michigan, March 2005, at 9. As a practical matter, therefore, as the commissioner has recently pointed out, the commissioner has no 1 MCL a provides, in relevant part: If uniformly applied to all its insureds, an insurer may establish and maintain a premium discount plan utilizing factors in addition to those permitted by section 2111 for insurance if the plan is consistent with the purposes of this act and reflects reasonably anticipated reductions in losses or expenses. 2 The insurance commissioner has promulgated a regulation that expressly prohibits insurers from using credit history as a rating factor. However, the insurance industry sued to prevent the rule from taking effect, and a Barry County judge has enjoined its implementation. Opinion and Order Granting Permanent Injunction, Insurance Institute of Michigan v. Commissioner, Barry County Circ. Ct., File No CZ, April 25, The state is appealing that ruling. 8

14 authority to find auto insurance rates excessive in Michigan, regardless of how high they are or how high a return they produce. Id. Finally, even if the commissioner were somehow to find rates excessive, the commissioner has no authority to order refunds to policyholders who paid excessive rates. All she can do is order the insurer not to charge the excessive rate in the future. MCL (2). In addition, relying on two recent Michigan Supreme Court decisions the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that policyholders have no ability to obtain refunds for themselves, even if they can demonstrate that their insurer has illegally surcharged them. McLiechey v. Bristol West Ins. Co., 474 F.3d 897 (6 th Cir. 2007). Thus, while on the one hand Michigan limits the rating factors auto insurers can use, on the other hand the inability of private parties to challenge illegally high premiums together with the commissioner s inability to order refunds means there is no meaningful sanction for unlawful rating practices in Michigan. IV. The performance of three leading Michigan auto insurers: State Farm, Auto Club and Allstate A. Background This section analyzes the profitability of the Michigan private passenger auto insurance business of State Farm, AAA, and Allstate, based on the data in their Annual Statements. In most years, those have been the three largest auto insurers in Michigan. They typically account for approximately 45% of all Michigan private passenger auto business. In their Annual Statements insurers are required to disclose their premiums and losses in each state, broken out by line and for auto insurance, by sub-line of insurance. The Annual Statements thus enable us to see each auto insurer s results separately for no-fault 9

15 coverage, liability coverage, and physical damage coverage, i.e., comprehensive and collision. For each of those types of insurance, the Annual Statements disclose the amount each insurer has taken in in premiums ( written premium ) and paid out in claims ( paid losses ) in the year of the Annual Statement. In addition, the Annual Statement discloses the amount the insurer has earned in premium ( earned premium ) in the year of the Annual Statement and the amount it projects it will pay out in claims ( incurred losses ) on policies in effect during the year of the Annual Statement. Earned premium differs slightly from written premium because it consists of the premium allocable to the portion of any policy in effect in the Annual Statement year, even if the policy is also in effect during a portion of the previous or following year. Written premium, in contrast, consists of the entire premium payable for a policy written in the Annual Statement year even if the policy covers part of the following year. Because insurers are continually writing policies, written premium and earned premium do not differ substantially when cumulated over several years. Paid losses and incurred losses, however, do differ substantially. Paid losses are the amount the insurer pays out in claims in the Annual Statement year. Incurred losses, on the other hand, are the amount the insurer projects it will pay out in claims covered by policies in effect during the Annual Statement year, plus or minus any changes in the amount the insurer has reserved for claims covered by policies written during previous years. The meaning of incurred losses as set forth in the Annual Statement is thus different from what the lay person would understand incurred losses to mean. B. Incurred loss analysis A key metric insurers use to evaluate their performance is the incurred loss ratio, or what insurers call simply the loss ratio, which is the ratio of incurred losses to earned 10

16 premium. All other things equal, the lower the loss ratio the more profitable the business. The following three tables set forth the loss ratio of each of the three largest Michigan auto insurers for each of the three types of auto insurance--no fault, liability, and physical damage--in each of the last five years. TABLE 1 State Farm Earned Premium v. Incurred Losses (in $millions) Year No-Fault Liability Physical Damage EP IL Ratio EP IL Ratio EP IL Ratio Totals

17 TABLE 2 Auto Club Insurance Associations Earned Premiums v. Incurred Losses (in $millions) Year No-Fault Liability Physical Damage EP IL Ratio EP IL Ratio EP IL Ratio Totals TABLE 3 Allstate Insurance Company Earned Premiums v. Incurred Losses (in $millions) Year No-Fault Liability Physical Damage EP IL Ratio EP IL Ratio EP IL Ratio Totals

18 The following three charts set forth the information above graphically: CHART 1 State Farm Incurred Loss Ratios Ratio (%) Year No-Fault Liability Physical Damage 13

19 CHART 2 AAA Incurred Loss Ratios Ratio (%) Year No-Fault Liability Physical Damage CHART 3 Allstate Earned Loss Ratios Ratio (%) Year No-Fault Liability Physical Damage The above tables and charts appear to indicate that, based on the data the insurers have reported in their Annual Statements, over the most recent five-year period both liability and 14

20 physical damage insurance have been highly profitable, but no-fault insurance has not. Specifically, the incurred loss ratio for each insurer over this five-year period was well above 100 on no-fault insurance--varying from for State Farm to for Auto Club but was below 55 on liability coverage for all three companies and was below 68 for all three companies on physical damage coverage. Liability coverage was thus the most profitable type of coverage. This is atypical: in many states where prior approval of rates is required, for example, regulators approve inadequate liability rates and excessive physical damage rates, thus in effect subsidizing the many low income people who buy only the liability coverage the law requires them to buy. In Michigan, both the liability coverage drivers are required to buy and the physical damage coverage which they have the option to buy appear to subsidize nofault coverage, which like liability coverage is mandatory. Notably, liability coverage accounts for a far smaller portion of the Michigan auto insurance premium dollar than either no-fault or physical damage coverage. Specifically, as the following table indicates, for each of the three companies liability coverage accounted for less than 16% of the premium dollar, whereas no-fault coverage accounted for between 29% and 36% of the premium dollar, and physical damage between 48% and 56%. TABLE 4 Percent of Premium by Coverage, State Farm, Auto Club and Allstate No-fault Liability Physical Damage State Farm Auto Club Allstate Average (unweighted):

21 The following chart sets forth the information above graphically: CHART 4 Percent of Premium by Coverage State Farm, AAA, & Allstate % 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% State Farm AAA Allstate Company No-Fault Liability Physical Damage In summary, based on the data they have reported in their Annual Statements, State Farm, Auto Club and Allstate all appear to have been charging excessive liability and physical damage rates but inadequate no-fault rates. As explained briefly in the introduction, however, and as further explained in section VC, infra, the incurred loss estimates Michigan auto insurers report in their Annual Statements for no-fault coverage may be substantially overstated, since those estimates include the amount the insurer is assessed by the MCCA to pay for all claims costs exceeding $400,000 3, and no one really knows what those costs will turn out to be. The dramatic year-by-year variation in the loss ratios the carriers report provides further support for the proposition that no one really knows how profitable or unprofitable no- 3 Prior to 2003, exceeding $250,000 per claim. 16

22 fault coverage really is. For example, State Farm s no-fault loss ratio ranged from a high of in 2002 to a low of 68.8 in 2006; Auto Club s no fault loss ratio ranged from a high of in 2003 to a low of the next year; and Allstate s no-fault loss ratio ranged from a high of in 2005 to a low of a negative 22.5 in (A negative loss ratio means that the amount by which the company reduced its reserves for previous years i.e., the amount by which it overstated its original projections of its ultimate liabilities exceeds the amount it projects it will pay out on new policies). Differences of this magnitude must necessarily be based on a combination of accounting changes and re-estimation of the prior year s reserves, rather than real changes in ultimate liabilities from year to year. Thus, while we can say definitively that the liability and physical damage rates State Farm, AAA and Allstate have charged over the last five years have been excessive, we can make no such definitive statement about their no-fault results, due to the unique nature of the MCCA. The impact the MCCA has had on the no-fault results Michigan auto insurers report, and the difficulty of determining the true profitability of no-fault coverage in Michigan, is discussed in more detail in section VC, infra. C. Paid loss analysis Paid loss ratios have limited relevance in determining whether the rates an insurer charges in a given year are excessive, since the premiums an insurer takes in in a given year pay for claims paid in future years, while the claims paid in a given year are covered by policies written in prior years. On the other hand, while it is true that many types of claims, such as medical malpractice claims, are not paid until several years after the premium is collected, other types of claims, including auto physical damage claims, are paid in a matter of weeks or months. For 17